Customer Relationship Management

Optimizing Sales Effectiveness to Achieve High Performance

Key Findings from the 2010 Sales Performance Optimization Study

While many signs point to economic recovery, underlying performance challenges persist for the sales teams at many large enterprises where more than cosmetic fixes may be needed to capture greater revenue from current customers, penetrate new and emerging markets and maintain profit margins. Composing a high performance sales function, even in an upturn, may require a deeper transformation of the fundamentalsfrom strategy and process to systems and talentto bring the science and art of sales back into focus.

Sales Performance

Introduction

The 2010 Sales Performance Optimization StudyAccentures annual assessment of sales force performance and challengesdemonstrates that by just about any measure of sales performance, 2009 was a tough year. This years study, which included more than 2,800 companies worldwide, showed that in 2009 organizations experienced the biggest single-year drop in percentage of revenue plan attained since this research began 16 years ago. In addition, enterprises across the globe had the second-lowest percentage of sales representatives meeting their quotas in the studys history. In response to the tough economy, we witnessed a variety of strategies employeddeep cuts in expenses, reduced sales headcount, and product offerings at extraordinary pricingall in an effort to make it through 2009. Yet, as the global economy shows signs of pulling itself out of one of the most severe recessions ever encountered,

chief sales officers are looking cautiously toward improved sales effectiveness and a return to growth.

About the 2010 Sales Performance Optimization Study

Accenture, in collaboration with CSO Insights, a leading research and benchmarking resource for chief sales officers, recently completed the 16th annual study on sales performance optimization. The research surveyed more than 2,800 companies worldwide to assess current sales performance, challenges facing sales teams, the reasons those problems exist, and what organizations are doing to effectively address these issues. In addition to gathering perspectives and opinions, the Web-based survey collected data on more than 100 metrics related to sales performance in enterprises ranging from manufacturing to services, retail, government, non-profits and many

others. To ensure a global sample, about two-thirds (66 percent) of participating firms were based in North America and the remaining third were internationally based companies. Data was collected from enterprises with less than $50 million in revenue to multi-billion dollar corporations. In this years study, 19.6 percent of respondents were from enterprises with more than $1 billion in revenue (or large enterprises). For purposes of this report we focus on the large enterprise segment of the studys respondents. And in the pages that follow, we review the key findings regarding 2009 sales performance and 2010 sales plans among these large enterprises.

Optimizing Sales Effectiveness to Achieve High Performance 3

Key Findings

4 Key Findings from the 2010 Sales Performance Optimization Study

Feeling significant revenue generation pressure, the sales forces of most organizations faced extreme challenges in 2009. Both of the primary metrics of sales force performance slipped in 2009: The revenue generation performance of salespeople dropped significantly, and as a result, overall company plan attainment declined as well. Across all large organizations, an average of 53.3 percent of sales representatives met or exceeded their sales quota in 2009. This is a substantial drop from the 65 percent having achieved quota in 2007 and 64 percent in 2008 (Figure 1). Perhaps this mediocre performance in meeting quotas helps explain why the top sales objective for 2010 for large organizations is improving sales effectiveness. (Figure 2). Multiple components can contribute to sales effectivenessfrom sales strategy and execution to compensation, sales process, sales management, and account management. We review how Figure 1. Percentage of sales representatives in large organizations meeting or exceeding their quotas.
Met in 2007 Met in 2008 Met in 2009 65%

companies fared across each of eight key sales capability areas below.

Compensation and hiring

Our findings in the area of compensation and hiring reflect a difficult year for sales executives. Many chose to stay in jobs that were secure, as voluntary sales representative turnover was low (at just under 12 percent for large enterprises). Involuntary turnover of sales representatives in large organizations was just over 12 percent as companies shed less-productive sales people to manage through difficult times. These figures are down from those in 2007 (18 percent and 14 percent, respectively) but not substantially different from those in 2008 (12 percent and 11 percent, respectively) (Figure 3). The outlook is cautiously optimistic for 2010: Almost half (46 percent) of large enterprises plan to increase sales force size in the next 12 months while only 9 percent plan to reduce its size.

Despite the general availability of good talent in the market today, many large companies felt that hiring representatives who will be successful at selling remains a problem. In fact, 38 percent said candidate selection needs improvement in their organization. When it comes to finding qualified candidates, few companies turn to recent college graduates. Two-thirds of large enterprise respondents said their sales force comprises largely sales professionals from within their industry, while only 9 percent said the majority of their sales force are new college graduates. According to respondents, a key practice to making successful hires is sales competency testing. Almost half (44 percent) of large enterprise respondents conduct sales competency testing as part of the hiring process and four-fifths of those that test believe it improves hiring success. One-fifth of respondents feel it significantly improves hiring outcomes, although this figure is down from 2008,

Figure 3. Sales turnover in large organizations.

Sales Rep Turnover: 2007-2009

20% 15% 10%

64%

53%
5% 0%

2007 Voluntary

2008 Involuntary

2009

Figure 2. Top sales objectives for large organizations. 1 2 3 Improving sales effectiveness -53% Increasing revenue -50% Capturing new accounts -40%

Optimizing Sales Effectiveness to Achieve High Performance 5

when just under one-third of respondents believed such testing improves their ability to hire the right sales people. Once a part of the workforce, new hires can take significant time to ramp up. The vast majority (71 percent) of large enterprises felt it took sales representatives at least six months to gain the skills they need when newly hired. In fact, 23 percent said it takes more than a year for a new rep to be fully-ramped up and effective. However, the good news is that time to competency appears to have decreased compared with 2007 and 2008, when 80 percent and 81 percent, respectively, reported it took new hires at least six months to be fully productive. In addition, across enterprises sales compensation structures remain a challenge. Almost half (49 percent) of respondents in 2009 felt their compensation plans needed improvement at driving precise selling behaviors. When reviewing compensation, one

aspect companies should look at is what percent of compensation is variable. While the prevailing assumption in most companies is that a higher percentage of variable compensation equates to a more motivated sales rep and, thus, higher sales performance, the research proves just the opposite is true. As shown in Figure 4, the reps for whom 0 percent to 15 percent of compensation was variable actually outperformed those for whom more than 15 percent was variable. Yet fewer than one in 10 companies surveyed in 2009 used such a scale; the most prevalent compensation schedule involved 26 percent to 40 percent, followed by 41 percent to 60 percent (Figure 5). Furthermore, our analysis found that reps for whom a higher percentage of compensation was variable were more likely to leave the company. In short, our findings show that not only is high-variable compensation least likely in encouraging reps to meet plan, it also results in greater sales rep attrition.

Sales cycle
When the market is contracting and revenue-generation opportunities are fewer, companies tend to turn to existing customers for new leads, as well as increase their focus on all aspects of the lead generation and sales funnel. Indeed, in 2009 enterprises with more than $1 billion in revenue generated nearly three-quarters of that revenue from existing clients, with just 26 percent coming from new accounts. These figures are virtually the same as those reported in 2007 and 2008. Despite the pressure to sell, sales representatives on average spent 42 percent of their time actually sellingon phone or in face-to-face meetings (Figure 6). However, this represents an increase over the 37 percent reported in 2008 and 36 percent in 2007. The rest of their time was spent in non-direct sales activities such as generating leads and researching accounts (19 percent),

Figure 4. Variable Pay to Quota Achieved

% of Reps Achieving Quota 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0% 1-15% 16-25% 26-40% 41-60% >60% Variable
57.6% 57.8% 51.5%

Lowest achieved quota Highest attrition rate

52.7% 53.3% 47.8%

Amount of Variable Pay

Figure 5. Sales Rep Variable Compensation Package Breakdown

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2007 2008 2009 1-15% 16-25% 26-40% 41-60% >60% No variable pay

6 Key Findings from the 2010 Sales Performance Optimization Study

in meetings and administrative tasks (21 percent) and other activities (18 percent for training, account service calls, etc). Interestingly, the percentage of time spent on other activities dropped substantially from 31 percent in 2008. Spending time on lead generation was critical, as sales reps reported doing the majority of lead generation themselves. Just over half (55 percent) of leads were generated by the sales representative down slightly from 2008 (59 percent) and 2007 (58 percent). The rest of their leads came from marketing (23 percent of leads on average) and other sources (22 percent came from partners, press, and referrals). Overall, large enterprises reported mixed success at managing leads through sales stages once they were generated. Interestingly, between 10 percent and 15 percent reported not knowing their conversion rates at various sales stages (Figure 7).

Sales strategy
Sales strategy is of particular importance when resources are tight and performance thresholds are high. Overall, large enterprise respondents felt their sales strategy needs improvement. In fact, just over half (51 percent) felt they need to improve the way they prioritize the accounts on which to focus selling resources. About the same proportion (52 percent) said they need improvement in developing sales plans for key prospects, and 53 percent said they need to improve in thoroughly researching prospects prior to sales calls. And regarding lead generation, 56 percent said they need to improve in generating leads, 52 percent said they need to improve in properly qualifying and prioritizing opportunities and 53 percent said they need to improve at incubating leads with interest but no time. In general, large companies appear to have made

some progress in the preceding areas, as the percentage of respondents in 2009 reporting they need improvement declined slightly from 2007 and 2008. Also of critical importance to sales effectiveness is doing an exceptional job of converting opportunities into sales. In general, large enterprise respondents are bullish on their sales execution abilities. How good is sales execution? More than half (58 percent) said their ability to clearly understand the customer buying process meets or exceeds expectations. Nearly three-fourths (73 percent) said they meet or exceed expectations at effectively and consistently presenting features and benefits. Nearly twothirds (64 percent) said they are meeting or exceeding expectations at differentiating from the competition and 61 percent said they meet or exceed expectations at aligning their solution with customer needs. And, 76 percent said they meet or exceed

Figure 6. Sales Rep Time Allocation

21.2%

17.5%

% Selling (phone or face-to-face) % Meetings/Administrative Tasks

19.4% 41.9%

% Other (account service calls, training, etc.) % Generating Leads/Researching Accounts

Figure 7: Knowledge of conversion rates at various stages of the sales process What percentage of qualified leads results in an initial customer discussion/meeting? <25% 26 - 50% >50% Do Not Know

Percentage of Percentage of proposals presentations that that result in a sale result in a proposal 15% 41% 38% 30% 32% 13% 15% 16%

Percentage of discussions that result in a presentation 12% 44% 28% 16%

Percentage of leads that result in an initial discussion 15% 30% 39% 16%

Optimizing Sales Effectiveness to Achieve High Performance 7

expectations at generating accurate bids, configurations and proposals. These figures are generally consistent with those reported in 2007 and 2008. Which areas of sales execution need improvement? Fifty-six percent of large enterprise respondents said their cross-selling and up-selling needs improvement (up substantially from 45 percent in 2008 and 49 percent in 2007); 58 percent said they need improvement in selling value and not discounting, a critical skill in a price-pressured economy (up slightly from 2008 and nearly 15 points from 2007); and half (50 percent) need improvement in closing deals in the timeframe originally forecast (about the same as reported in 2008 but 11 points higher than in 2007) (Figure 8). Clearly there are deal-breakers in any sales situation, with price at the top of the list. Indeed, the top reason large enterprises in 2009 cited for losing a sale by far was price and terms (81 percent had it in the top-three loss reasons, similar to 2008 and 2007).

Regardless of industry, product or sales situation, price and terms lost the sale. The next-most cited reason for losing a sale was competitors having existing relationships, selected by 58 percent of respondents in 2009 (and 66 percent and 61 percent, respectively, in 2008 and 2007). Beyond these factors respondents perspectives varied widely on other reasons deals were lost. Account coverage, sales process execution, availability of product, competitors market messaging and competitors brand equity all were chosen by about 20 percent of respondents in 2009. While price and terms are clearly reasons for losing deals, only 28 percent of large enterprise respondents cited price and terms as a reason for winning. Factors cited as the top three reasons why companies won deals last year included existing client relationships (62 percent placed this in the top three reasons), brand equity / reputation (53 percent), level of service/support (46 percent), and product superiority (40 percent). Interestingly, only 31 percent

of respondents in 2007 cited service and support as a factor in winning deals, a figure that rose to 51 percent in 2008 before dropping in 2009 (Figure 9).

Account management
With new accounts being scarce and the majority of revenue being generated from existing accounts, account management was critical in 2009. The majority of large enterprise respondents believe they meet or exceed performance expectations on such things as effectively introducing new products, generating additional revenue from existing clients, effectively communicating with customers, renewing business with existing customers, and creating customer loyalty (Figure 10). The only area where the majority reported account management needed improvement is in creating and maintaining customer references and case studies (58 percent said this area needed work), an area that posed a challenge for a similar percentage of respondents in 2008 and 2007.

Figure 8: Sales Execution Activities Needing Improvement

Sell value/avoid discounting Effectively cross-sell/up-sell Close deals in timeframe originally forecast Clearly understands customer's buying process Align solution with customer's needs Differentiate versus the competition Effectively/consistently present features and benefits Generate accurate bid/configuration/proposal 25% 21% 40% 37% 35% 58% 56% 50%

8 Key Findings from the 2010 Sales Performance Optimization Study

Figure 9. Factors in winning and losing deals among large organizations. Top Three Reasons for Winning
Existing Relationships Brand Equity/Reputation Level of Service/Support Product Superority Price and Terms Sales Process Execution ROI Business Case Availability of Product/Solution Account Coverage 15.7% 15.3% 14.9% 13.8% 28% 61.7% 52.5% 46% 39.5%

Top Three Reasons for Losing

Price & Terms Ccompetitors Existing Relationships Account Coverage Sales Process Execution Availability of Product Competitors Market Messaging Competitors Brand Equity/ Reputation Service/Support Competitors Product Superiority Competitors References ROI Business Case Other 22.2% 21.1% 21.1% 20.3% 20.3% 17.2% 12.3% 11.9% 4.6% 1.9% 57.5% 80.5%

References 11.9% Market Messaging Other 4.6% 1.9%

Figure 10. Account Management Activities Needing Improvement

Create/maintain customer case studies/references Farm additional revenues from existing customers Effectively introduce new products Effectively communicate with customers Create customer loyalty Renew business with existing customers 19% 29% 27% 47% 40% 58%

Optimizing Sales Effectiveness to Achieve High Performance 9

Sales management
Clearly there is a direct correlation between the level of competence of sales managers and the results generated by the sales force. However, sales management (i.e., first-line sales managers) is often overlooked and sales managers are often overwhelmed. This proved true among our survey respondents (Figure 11). About half of large enterprise respondents felt they need improvement on several sales management dimensions: accurately forecasting business, regularly conducting win/loss reviews, continually adapting the sales process to market changes, and effectively sharing best practices across the sales force (Figure 11). The percentage of respondents indicating they need improvement in these areas remained largely consistent between 2007 and 2009.

Sales process, methodology and training

Despite their size, 15 percent of large enterprise respondents in 2009 reported using a random sales process and 42 percent classified their process as informal (Figure 12). Both figures are slightly higher than those reported in 2007 and 2008. The remaining 43 percent use a formal process of some sort and a minority (13 percent) classified their sales process as formal but dynamic to flex with the changing environment. Enterprises were evenly split between using an in-house and a commercial methodology for sales process 30.0% management. But regardless of methodology, most firms struggle with 41.5% getting full adoption of the process. Only seven percent reported more than a 90 percent adoption rate (up two points 13.0% from 2008 and 2007), and an additional 15.4% 19 percent reported between 76 percent and 90 percent adoption (up from 13 percent in 2008 and 16 percent in 2007).

Figure 12: Adherence to Use of Sales Process

30.0% 41.5% 13.0% 15.4%

Lev

Lev

Lev

Lev

Level 1Random Process Level 2Informal Process Level 3Formal Process Level 4Dynamic Process

Figure 11: Sales Management Activities Needing Improvement

Effectively share best practices across the salesforce Accurately forecast business Regularly conduct win/loss reviews Compensation plans driving precise selling behavior Continually adapt sales process to market changes Sales manager has access to timely/accurate metrics Proactively identify which reps need coaching Consistently hire reps who succeed at selling 56% 54% 54% 49% 47% 43% 41% 38%

10 Key Findings from the 2010 Sales Performance Optimization Study

Perhaps related to this lack of formality and incomplete adoption, large companies in 2009 appear to believe their sales methodology has less of an impact on performance than their counterparts did in 2008 and 2007. In fact, the percentage of those believing it had a significant impact on performance dropped by half between 2008 and 2009, while the percentage of those believing it had no impact doubled during the same time. About two-thirds of respondents in 2009 (68 percent, which is up 13 points from 2008 and 18 points from 2007) said their sales process modestly improves sales performance (Figure 13). Another key element of sales performance is investment in sales training. According to the survey, such investment varies considerably among companies with revenue of $1 billion or more (Figure 14).

Figure 13: Impact of sales methodology on performance What impact does your sales methodology have on your sales performance? Significantly improves Modestly improves No impact

2007 34% 50% 6%

2008 33% 55% 4%

2009 16% 68% 8%

Figure 14: Investment in sales training Approximately how much do you spend on training per sales person per year? Less than $1,500 per rep/year Between $1,500-2,500 per rep/year More than $2,500 per rep/year We do not do training

2009 37% 33% 30% 1%

Optimizing Sales Effectiveness to Achieve High Performance 11

Perhaps not surprisingly given the recent recession, this spending on training has decreased since 2007, when 30 percent of respondents said they spend between $5000 and $7500 per sales person each year. That figure dropped to 10 percent for respondents in 2009. At the other end of the spectrum, the percentage of respondents reporting spending less than $500 per person on training doubled between 2007 and 2009from 6 percent to 12 percentand those investing between $500 and $1500 rose from 19 percent in 2007 to 25 percent in 2009. Furthermore, many aspects of training need improvement. For instance, while a slight majority of respondents in 2009 (53 percent) are happy with the amount of sales skills training that is done and 66 percent are happy with the amount of product training received, a small majority also believed several specific areas need improvement. These areas include the amount of customer marketplace training (58 percent), the amount of training on justifying a purchase (50 percent), and the amount of sales management training (55 percent). Figure 15: The use of newer CRM functionality Use of newer CRM functionality for Sales force collaboration Sales analytics/ forecasting Lead generation/management Sales knowledge management CRM/sales process integration

Core CRM and CRM 2.0 usage

For the most part, large enterprises have CRM systems in place for sales (78 percent have formally implemented a CRM system) and the majority are using commercial packages. Adoption of CRM is greater than adoption of the sales process: 31 percent reported greater than 90 percent adoption, and an additional 27 percent reported between 76 percent and 90 percent adoption. In addition, the use of newer CRM functionality is progressing. Sales forces increasingly use mobile applications, knowledge management, collaboration, and sales analytics as they integrate CRM with their formal sales processes (Figure 15). Interestingly, the primary benefits respondents receive from CRM systems are improved sales representative/ manager communications (53 percent), improved forecast accuracy (47 percent), and reduced administrative

burden (35 percent). Far fewer large enterprise respondents reported the CRM system having direct top- or bottom-line impacts: 6 percent said it increased margins, 11 percent said it increased revenue, 13 percent said it shortened sales cycles, and 17 percent said it improved win rates (Figure 16).

Sales and marketing alignment

Companies believe they still have considerable work to do on sales and marketing integration. For example, nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of large enterprise respondents reported the quantity or quality of leads generated by marketing needs improvement (the same percentage as in 2008) and almost as many (57 percent, about the same as in 2008) said the effectiveness of their website at engaging prospects needs work as well. Forty-two percent of respondents in 2009 (compared with 44 percent in 2008) reported the quantity or quality of sales support materials

Were using now 62% 25% 21% 10% 8%

We plan to start using next year 8% 16% 14% 14% 11%

12 Key Findings from the 2010 Sales Performance Optimization Study

needs improvement. And while marketing generates almost one-fourth of leads, the majority of respondents recognized that it takes a long lead time for marketing programs to generate sales (Figure 17).

Looking ahead at the next 12 months

Large enterprises are expecting growth in 2010, albeit modest. Virtually all respondents said they have increased sales targets to try to achieve growth (Figure 18). But this growth wont be achieved easily. In fact, 50 percent of respondents have concerns about meeting revenue goals in 2010 and 4 percent said it just wont happen (3 percent said goals will easily be met and 44 percent said its achievable with effort). However, respondents are pressing ahead on improving sales effectiveness: Top initiatives for large enterprise sales executives in 2010 include enhancing

team communications (40 percent), improving sales representative access to information (38 percent), and more closely aligning sales and marketing (35 percent). Overall, our large enterprise sales executives have conveyed cautious optimism for the next 12 months, but fully recognize that strong account management, careful planning and improved sales effectiveness are critical to success.

Figure 16: Benefits Resulting from CRM Usage

Improved Sales Rep/ Manager Communications Improved Forecast Accuracy Reduced Administrative Burden on Sales Improved Order Processing Accuracy Improved Win Rates Reduced New Sales Rep Ramp-up Time Improved Best Practices Sharing Improced Support of Channels Other Shortened Sell Cycles Increased Revenues Increased Margins 21.5% 17.0% 16.5% 15.5% 14.5% 14.0% 13.0% 10.5% 6.0% 34.5% 53.0% 47.0%

Figure 17: Lead time for marketing to generate sales Timeframe for Marketing Programs to Generate Sales 2-5 months 30% More than 5 months 25% Less than 2 months 23% Dont know 22% Figure 18: Sales targets for 2010 2010 Targets Compared to 2009 Targets were less than or the 15% same as 2009 Grew targets by 1-5 percent 29% Grew targets by 6-10 percent 33% Grew targets 11-15 percent 12% Grew targets 16-25 percent 8% Grew targets more than 25 3% percent

Optimizing Sales Effectiveness to Achieve High Performance 13

Implications

At a high level, what do our survey findings mean? We drew four highlevel conclusions from our research. The first conclusion is that the challenges facing chief sales officers are difficult and interrelated. In many firms, revenue growth targets are not being met, a large percentage of sales people are not proficient at qualifying and prioritizing opportunities, and the foundations of account planning are not being routinely executed. Sales methodologies are not being leveraged consistently, even though its widely recognized that the use of a methodology improves performance. And, in many cases, sales forces cannot effectively map the sales process to the customers buying process, despite the fact that clients are often vocal about what they need. Our second conclusion is that solution selling, relationship selling and formal processes drive results. Growth is dependent on client relationships. Our

research shows that companies with stronger client relationships and a dynamic sales process significantly outperformed peers. For instance, top performersthose with a more strategic or trusted partner relationship with accounts and a formal yet dynamic sales process had 20 percent more of their sales force attaining quotas and were 17 percent closer to attaining their companys sales plan than their peers that lacked strong customer relationships and a formal sales process. A focus on strategic accounts truly sets these top performers apart: They jointly set long-term objectives and review results of their solutions with these key customers, and they regularly collaborate across their department to provide superior account management. Third, talent is expensive, but is a clear differentiator. Furthermore, the classic approach to the talent management process is no longer valid. Organizations continue to

struggle at hiring the right salespeople and attaining sales quotas. One thing thats consistent across all sales forces, however, is that high performers continue to excel. Our research shows that the top 20 percent of salespeople bring in more than 60 percent of the revenue for their firm. The challenge is to capture what differentiates high-performing salespeople, and then use that profile in hiring, training and retention. Finally, variable pay is not the only driver of performance. Companies continue to increase variable compensation as a performance incentive, yet our research shows that greater variable pay does not correlate to an increase in the attainment of sales quotas. Rather, what is critical is helping sales executives fulfill their potential by having the supporting conditions in place that increase their chances of success.

14 Key Findings from the 2010 Sales Performance Optimization Study

Recommendations
Our research shows that CSOs know they have substantial work ahead of them in many aspects of improving sales effectiveness, from hiring, training, and motivating respondents; to managing the sales process; to translating the new capabilities provided by CRM systems into business benefits; to tightening the linkage between sales and marketing. Our research also reveals that CSOs believe overcoming these challenges and attaining their sales goals for 2010 will be anything but easy. To that end, we believe CSOs should consider a number of actions that can help the address their sales force performance challenges. These include the following: Build a comprehensive sales strategy to boost differentiation, address competitive threats and maximize profitability. Identify pockets of growth opportunities through customer and channel segmentation analytics, align routes-to-market to opportunity segments, and build the organization strategy and operating model to effectively target these growth opportunities. Partner to achieve speed to market, mitigate risks and add relevance to a companys portfolios. Changing the channel mix to include both direct and indirect channels can help sales teams target customers better, and can be critical to expanding market coverage (especially globally). Take a systematic approach to multichannel sales management. Strategize, design and implement customer-focused initiatives across multiple channels through coordinated processes, integrated data and automation. Deploy resources intelligently. Consider global/regional sales operations capabilities. Devise coverage models that focus on the addressable market opportunity, rather than sheer customer count, to optimize expense-to-revenue utilization without over-distributing resources. Be diligent about driving the evolution of the sales forces abilities to meet changing demands, and unlocking the sales forces full potential. For example, use technology to automate as much activity involving lower-end customers as possible, freeing up sales time for more lucrative customers and reducing operating cost. Work to develop a high-performance sales organization by migrating top performers attributes to the full sales organization. Comprehensively study top sales performers behavior, competencies and personality to build effective sales training programs and new-hire profiles. Adopt a holistic approach to incentive compensation management, leveraging next-generation technology solutions to improve sales performance. Such an approach should drive desired sales behavior, enable rapid response to changing market conditions and new product offerings, proactively support complex sales and multichannel distribution models, consider the balance of intrinsic versus extrinsic rewards, and provide higher accuracy in commission calculation, minimizing disputes and overpayments. All indications are that while 2010 likely will be better economically, the underlying challenges CSOs face will not simply disappear with a few quarters of growth. CSOs at large enterprises still will face continued pressure to capture greater revenue from existing customers, penetrate new and emerging markets and maintain profit margins in a challenging economy. For them to reach their sales goals, even in an improving economy, CSOs likely will find they need to change the fundamentals of their sales organizationfrom strategy and process to systems and talent. Taking the actions just discussed will be a substantial step forward, and will help companies create sales organizations that drive growth and high performance for years to come.

For more information, please contact:

Richard J. Bakosh Accenture Managing Director Global Sales Transformation richard.j.bakosh@accenture.com

For more information about Accenture, please visit www.accenture.com/crm

The views and opinions in this article should not be viewed as professional advice with respect to your business. Accenture, its logo, and High Performance Delivered are trademarks of Accenture. The use herein of trademarks that maybe owned by others is not an assertion of ownership of such trademarks by Accenture nor intended to imply an association between Accenture and the lawful owners of such trademarks.

Copyright 2010 Accenture All rights reserved. Accenture, its logo, and High Performance Delivered are trademarks of Accenture.

About Accenture
Accenture is a global management consulting, technology services and outsourcing company, with more than 181,000 people serving clients in more than 120 countries. Combining unparalleled experience, comprehensive capabilities across all industries and business functions, and extensive research on the worlds most successful companies, Accenture collaborates with clients to help them become high-performance businesses and governments. The company generated net revenues of US$21.58 billion for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2009. Its home page is www.accenture.com.